http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/24/justice/c ... ng-deaths/
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

New report states all the gun belonged to the suspect. So WTF? Who would oppose putting mental disorders into the NCIC checks? Obviously someone mentally unstable shouldn't own such a weapon. Minus minor PTSD folks, anyone with social disorders, autism, anger management issues coupled with multiple arrests, etc. they should be targeted because from what I've seen these are the 85% (my own guesstimation) of people who do this sort of stuff.SHMIV wrote:My grandmother is dyslexic. She has never taken any medication for it, managed to have a successful career, then retired and spent 25 years taking and passing college classes. She also reads regularly.
Most drugs can easily be replaced with some effort and determination. You know, like folks did for centuries before those drugs were invented.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Agreed. When dealing with a natural right codified by our Constitution, the opinion of one person isn't enough to deny you of those rights. We already have the correct process of a court adjudication in place where a third party decides and you have the opportunity to defend yourself. This lines up with the Constitution. I don't know what it currently takes to get someone in court for that process, but there may be some wiggle room to expand in those circumstances.SHMIV wrote:As it happens, I would oppose that. Reason being, a mental health professional could find a reason to declare ANYONE insane. Especially if they are paid to do so.
I'd rather be armed and take my chances with everyone else being armed. Besides, I figure if felons can find a source to get guns illegally, so can mildly crazy folks. And completely evil folks.
We start instituting mental checks, eventually we'll all be declared mentally deficient.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
This! He obviously didn't fit in with the Hollywood/Cali culture. The non-lunatic response would have been to adopt an "I don't care what these folks think about me" attitude and take off to seek his own path in the world. Sheesh. If this kid would have been raised by parents that told him that life isn't fair, what matters most is what's in your heart, and who gives a d@mn what anyone thinks, I wouldn't be posting here.trailrunner wrote:This kid was spoiled from beginning to end. Daddy bought him a BMW. Daddy rented him an apartment in a very nice part of a very nice town. Only thing daddy didn't buy him was a GF, although as Kreutz says, maybe he should have. The kid dropped out of community college, but he didn't have to come up with a plan on how he was going to support himself for the rest of his life, because he had daddy's safety net. He expected his nice car (which he did NOT earn) to get him a date.
It's sort of ironic that he was after the prettiest girls, yet his dad is part of the Hollywood industry that is constantly hyping the most beautiful people, and is constantly shoving the lifestyles of the rich and famous in our face. So instead of finding someone that he was compatible with and building a solid relationship, the the kid wanted to be a part of the (shallow) high-rolling crowd of beautiful people who drive expensive black european cars.
I have some relatives (not by blood) who live in so Cal who are like this boy. Daddy wound up making a pile of money, but was a half-hearted parent (at best). To compensate for his poor parenting, he threw money at the kids. Now that they are young adults are in their early 20s, daddy gives them an oceanfront apartment, a nice car (a BMW or MB -- not a Corolla), a travel expense account, and $10k/month allowance for miscellaneous expenses (tax free, of course). Kids never set foot in college, never had a job, and now just sit around all day with no purpose. Out of those three kids, we predict two will not make it to be 30 years old.